andMr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of each outstanding Exchequer loan in DM in each or the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984.
12.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Exchequer Loans.
11.
andMr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Finance if he will give details of each outstanding Exchequer loan in US dollars in each of the years 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together.
On a point of order, before the Minister replies I would point out that Question No. 11 relates to the extension of Exchequer loans in DM in each of the four years while No. 12 relates to outstanding Exchequer loans in US dollars. These are entirely different matters so I do not understand why the Minister should take both questions together.
The Chair has no control over that matter.
Has the Chair no function in Ministers lumping together questions that are totally separate?
The Chair has no function in that regard.
In that case perhaps the Chair would note my protest at this being done.
The Deputy does not know yet what the answer is and consequently it is hardly correct for him to protest.
Questions Nos. 11 and 12 together.
The information requested by the Deputies in respect of 1981, 1982 and 1983 is published in Account No. XXV of the Finance Accounts for the relevant years with additional information in Account No. XXIV and Account No. XXVI. The information in respect of 1984 will be published in the 1984 Finance Accounts which are required to be laid before the House not later than 30 June 1985.
Will the information in respect of dollars show that between 1981 and 1984 the amount of Exchequer loans increased from $1,173 million to $3,048 million in 1984, an almost threefold increase? Can the Minister explain why dollar borrowing has increased so significantly in those years, having regard particularly to the fact that we are now paying so much extra as a consequence of the Government's mistake in the City?
I conclude from the figures referred to by the Deputy that he is already familiar with the finance accounts which set out the information referred to in the two questions.
It is my business to be familiar with these accounts.
Regarding the final part of the supplementary, as I explained here on Thursday last, had we had no new dollar borrowings in 1983 or 1984, the proportion of the total outstanding, denominated in dollars, would have increased by virtue of the appreciation in the value of the dollar as against the punt.
Would the Minister not agree that last year alone the appreciation of the dollar against our currency cost us £420 million on Exchequer borrowing alone——
No.
——and about £480 million, taking total State borrowing? In view of that would the Minister not agree that it was very imprudent of this Government and this Minister particularly to increase our dollar borrowing to the extent that they have and particularly to increase the proportion of borrowings from say, 31 per cent as in 1981 to 38 per cent of our Exchequer borrowing in 1984? Can the Minister justify that increase and the mistaken decision he has taken which is costing the nation very dearly?
I do not agree it was imprudent. As I have pointed out to the Deputy it is not that a deliberate decision was taken. I pointed out to the Deputy also that he should beware of taking in excessively facile a fashion the ráiméis that the leader of his party gave out on the radio last Sunday week when he spoke about the increase in the IR£ value of outstanding dollar borrowings and compounded the gaffe by asking what we might not do with that £400 million if we had it. We have not got it. It is not a cost that arises, it is unrealised exchange loss. The amount of any actual loss will depend on respective exchange rates of the currencies in question the moment the loans come to maturity.
Is there any reason why the Minister cannot give the information sought in the question now in his reply?
For 1984.
As I pointed out to Deputy O'Kennedy, the information sought in the reply is already published and I have recalled to the House where the information is published. Also, I remind the House that Deputy O'Kennedy appears to be familiar already with the information. If I took a different view of the matter I might have prepared a tabular statement to circulate with the Official Report of, for example table 25 of the finance accounts which gives the main part of the information requested by the Deputy which runs to a page and a half of fairly close typing in the finance accounts and covers a large number of loans. On a certain approach it might suit me extremely well to stand up here and go through this table in detail, but I do not think that that is what Question Time is all about.
I thought the Minister would have included it by way of a tabular report. Is he deciding now to create a precedent on parliamentary questions and replies to say that Deputies should look up the matter in the relevant document? I trust that the Minister will include it with the reply in the form of a tabular statement.
Perhaps the Deputy has got a little out of touch with the procedure in the House over the last two years. I take it that the form in which I have given the answer is perfectly in keeping with precedent and practice in these matters.
I have not even asked a question on DM. Would the Minister like to explain to the House why, while the dollar borrowing of this Government has increased enormously at considerable cost to the taxpayer, at the same time borrowing in DM was 46 per cent of our total Exchequer foreign debt in 1981 and is 29 per cent this year? Can the Minister give an explanation other than the fact that perhaps the Germans did not want to lend to us in the last couple of years?
That is rubbish and the Deputy knows it.
Why this sudden switch which has cost this nation, every taxpayer, every worker and every citizen very dearly?
To answer that question properly we would need a detailed discussion on what the situation is and has been on financial markets in both Europe and the US for the last few years. I do not propose to do that. The very fact that the Opposition are asking questions of the kind we are now looking at and making statements of the kind we have heard recently indicates very clearly that either they have not a clue as to how financial matters work or it does not suit the kind of case they want to make to show any passing knowledge of it.
Let me quote the facts and figures that I have here.
What have I?
The Minister in respect of the leader of our party and myself is adopting a personal attack. That is a matter for him and he may do that if he wishes but he is——
Ask him a question.
He is Minister for Finance who regulates and controls the economy. Can he even in general terms explain and justify to the public the deliberate switch in strategy from mixed borrowing particularly in EMS currencies and Deutsche Mark domination within that to dollar borrowing? Will he acknowledge that if £420 million is the cost today but the increase since that figure was calculated at the end of 1984 is in excess of £420 million, perhaps when we come to pay back dollars we will be talking about paying £700 million extra, not £420 million?
Deputy O'Kennedy seems to be either ignoring or else completely out of touch with the course of financial markets over the last few years. I am sure he knows perfectly well that over the last few years the rising strength of the dollar has attracted more and more mobile investable funds into the dollar market. Most lenders want to lend in that market. As I said to the Deputy last week, there would be absolutely no point in my saying that we are going to conduct our foreign borrowing programme this year in escudos for example, or in a currency that is softer than those that are habitually available. I could very well do that and find myself at the end of the year with one arm as long as the other because nobody wanted to lend in those currencies. We have to take account of the situation on the markets.
Regarding the other currencies, we as a deliberate policy measure have a higher proportion of our foreign borrowing denominated in EMS currencies, as I told the Deputy last week, than most other EMS countries. However, access to a number of those markets is limited by a series of different arrangements on different markets.
The Minister's reply indicated that figures for 1981, 1982 and 1983 were available in published accounts. His Department must know what the known figures are for the DM and the dollar at this point. Would he not indicate to the House what figures for 1984 are in loans in DM and dollars?
The reason I have given the reference in that way is so that the figures for each of the years could be available for reference by Deputies in a consistent form through the years. As I have said, the figures for 1984 will be published in the 1984 finance acxcounts.
Ceist a 13.
I find this at odds with the reply the Minister gave already. Deputy De Rossa is right. Is not the figure in 1984 for US dollars £3,048 million according to a reply he has given in this House? Is not the figure for DM in 1984 £2,332 million? If that is the case, why would the Minister not confirm that today rather than conceal those figures?
I have answered the question that was asked today. Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Brennan asked for each of the years if I would give details of each outstanding Exchequer loan in DM and US dollars. I have indicated the source where that information is available. Deputy O'Kennedy and any other Member of the House can ask me the question in a different way and get the information. Indeed, Deputy O'Kennedy has just admitted that he got it last week.
For clarification, if the Minister can in respect of either US dollars in 1984 or DM in 1984 give the total figures as he acknowledges are right, surely that means that he can also give us the breakdown of what makes up those total figures. In view of that, why is he not prepared to give that to the House today as Deputy De Rossa asked?
Because I have answered the question in the form it was put to me.